‘A statutory cap on compensation payable by the UK’s Pension Protection Fund (PPF) to those who have not yet reached pension age is unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st July 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The judgment of Mr Justice Lewis in Hughes and others v Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2020] EWHC 1598 (Admin), handed down on 22 June 2020, is of considerable importance for members of defined benefit schemes of insolvent employers. Thomas Seymour along with a counsel team from Blackstone Chambers (Tom de la Mare QC and Iain Steele), instructed by Farrers, acted for the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) representing pilots who were members of the Monarch and BMI Schemes, who brought proceedings for judicial review along with the claimants of other schemes. The proceedings, brought against the Pension Protection Fund (“PPF”) with the Department of Work and Pensions (“DWP”) as an interested party, were heard at a five-day remote hearing in the Administrative Court in May.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 24th June 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘On 19 June 2020, Mr Justice Trower handed down judgment granting rectification of the Univar Company Pension Scheme (1978), in the first pension rectification claim decided after a full trial since the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corp Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1361.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 22nd June 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘In a decision which threatens to bring turmoil to vast number of SIPPs (self-invested personal pensions), the Upper Tribunal has decided in HMRC v Sippchoice Ltd [2020] UKUT 149 (TCC) (Roth J and Upper Tribunal Judge Greg Sinfield) that member contributions to registered pension schemes are only eligible for tax relief where they are paid in money. Where a member transfers shares to the scheme trustees no tax relief is available, even where done in satisfaction of a money debt, and notwithstanding the terms of HRMC’s own Pensions Tax Manual which appears to say the opposite.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 18th May 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘In 2016, the Government issued guidance to local authorities administering the local government pension scheme (“LGPS”) which had the effect of restricting divestments from UK defence companies and foreign countries. In response, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a company dedicated to campaigning in support of the rights of the Palestinian people, sought judicial review of this guidance. In R (on the application of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ltd and another) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court ruled by a bare majority in favour of the PSC.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 28th May 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘What is the position if business owners employed by their own company award themselves substantially enhanced “golden parachute” terms in advance of a TUPE transfer, confident in the expectation that those liabilities will be picked up by the unwitting transferee?’
Employment Law Blog, 18th May 2020
Source: employment11kbw.com
‘In the recent Court of Appeal (“CA”) decision of Clark v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 204 (“Clark”) the Court gave valuable guidance as to the meaning of “payment” for the purpose of the imposition of the tax charge on unauthorised member payments from registered pension schemes under sections 208-210 of the Finance Act 2004 (“FA 2004”).’
Wilberforce Chambers, 11th May 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘Jack Rundall considers the case of W v H (divorce financial remedies) [2020] EWFC B10 in relation to the treatment of pensions on divorce, a case which he suggests is being under-reported amongst the concerns surrounding Covid 19.’
Pump Court Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘The Supreme Court has overturned ministerial guidance to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) that was intended to put a stop to certain types of ethical disinvestment.’
Local Govdernment Lawyer, 29th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This appeal concerns the breadth of the ethical investments that the authorities which administer the local government pension scheme are permitted to make. The appellants brought a claim for judicial review alleging that two passages in the guidance issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations in 2016 was unlawful. The first passage concerned states that “the Government has made clear that using pension policies to pursue boycotts, divestment and sanctions against foreign nations and UK defence industries are inappropriate, other than where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the Government”. The second passage states that authorities “[s]hould not pursue policies that are contrary to UK foreign policy or UK defence policy”.’
UKSC Blog, 30th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This case is about Government “Guidance” aimed at local authorities, banning some of those “ethical” objections to investment policies but allowing other objections. “Guidance” in quotes because the net effect of the Act and secondary legislation was to make the Guidance mandatory: see [10] of Lord Wilson’s judgment. In particular, the policy ban was to apply to (a) boycotts to foreign nations and (b) UK defence industries. The sharp focus of the former was Israel. No surprises that the Quakers and the Campaign against the Arms Trade should appear in support of the challenge to the latter.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In the Court of Appeal decision of Clark v HMRC, the court held that in considering whether the tax charge imposed on unauthorised member payments under sections 208 to 210 of the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004) applied, the question of whether a ‘payment’ had been made was to be answered by looking at the practical, business reality of the transaction. Applying that approach, on the facts of the case, a transfer of legal title without beneficial title did constitute a ‘payment’. The Court of Appeal also provided important guidance as to the operation of the discovery provisions within section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970), including the question of how the scope of a discovery assessment is to be delimited. Written by Jonathan Davey QC of Wilberforce Chambers and Sam Chandler of 5 Stone Buildings, who acted for HMRC.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘As the Coronavirus causes unprecedented and rapid change in our daily lives and many of us get used to the challenges of remote working, it is a good time to remind clients of the recent CoA decision in R. (on the application of Pensions Regulator) v Workchain Ltd [2019] EWCA Crim 1422 which demonstrates the wide application of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (“CMA”). The case serves as a stark warning for companies and their officers who are not taking data security seriously. Tim Green was instructed by The Pensions Regulator (“TPR”).’
Henderson Chambers, 3rd April 2020
‘The Law Society has called for long-awaited legislation reforming divorce to be amended to ensure ex-spouses are not left financially vulnerable as a result of pension orders.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th March 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Claimants were two police officers aged 48 and 44 who were disabled under Equality Act 2010 (EqA). Because they were also unable to carry out the normal duties of a police officer, they were both awarded “H1 certificates” by the Force Medical Officer, which among other things, gave them the right to have immediate access to their pension (which would otherwise be deferred) if they left the police force before their normal retirement age.’
Old Square Chambers, 3rd March 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘The Claimant, Mr Casamitjana, was dismissed from his role at the League Against Cruel Sports in April 2018 after disclosing to colleagues that the company’s pension funds were being invested ‘unethically’. This was considered by the Respondent to be contrary to a management instruction not to provide financial advice to his colleagues. The Claimant brought claims of indirect discrimination, direct discrimination/harassment and victimisation by reference to his belief in ethical veganism, and PIDA detriment and dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.’
3PB, 7th February 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Financial remedy lawyers are familiar with the Form P1 Pension Sharing Annex under section 24B of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It records the instructions for how to share a party’s pension and who is to bear the cost, and also contains the parties’ details. It is approved by the court and sent to pension administrators to start the process of implementation of a pension sharing order.’
Becket Chambers, 22nd January 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘A high court battle pitting rail operators against the government is due to start on Monday, with Stagecoach and others seeking tens of millions of pounds in compensation in a case that could have far-reaching implications for the privatised rail system.’
The Guardian, 19th January 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Well, yes you probably did as a legal matter reach (or attain) age 21 at the start of your 21st birthday – ie at midnight at the start of that day (even if you had been born later in the day). But legally this has not always been the case in England and Wales.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 7th January 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘In what multiple commentators have hailed as a landmark legal case, Norwich Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant’s “ethical veganism” is a philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic for the purposes of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 (“s.10”) following a preliminary hearing on 2nd and 3rd January 2020.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th January 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024